It\'s been my observation that the D-line has generally been giving the opposing QB all day long anyway. Collins had 350 yards passing and no sacks. The two times he was pressured at all resulted in an Oakland penalty and one of the INTs.

This will be helped by even delayed blitzes. Recall that in principle I\'m not against blitzing more often. What I\'m opposed to is simply blitzing for the sake of blitzing. Our DL needs to focus more on gap control - and this is a good idea if what you point out is true - since they are not getting into the backfield anyway, it won\'t be any loss to hold them back.

OK. So how do we handle the obvious misdirection of running the ball on obvious passing downs? Do we then continue not to blitz the QB and play run blitz instead?

There are two parts to the solution to this as well. First, we have to anticipate (game plan) the play better - otherwise NO defensive scheme will help. Second, the basic defense I suggested would allow for more protection against this - with two linebackers freed to read and react.

Of course, it should be noted that EVERY defense has a weekness. The scheme I suggested has two obvious ones: (1) one less backer in coverage (though, given their coverage skills, I\'m not sure that hurts too much), and (2) runs that jump outside on the side away from the run blitz will be quite effective.

In response to the other claim made, that our guys aren\'t being aggressive enough, I think that can be read two ways. What I meant was they get too deep in the backfield, that has nothing to do with whether or not they play with heart, fire, and strength (which I think what Rich006 was referring to). I think one could agree that it is bad to do the former (which I see them doing frequently) and good to do the later (which I don\'t think I\'m in much of a position to say).

I think the key is to make teams go deep. If they get it, they get it, but up in the box, there gonna have FIGHT for every yard. Give them the short passes and make\'em pay.

How do you propose we do this? It sounds ok in principle (though, personally, I\'m never in favor of giving up big plays - that is demoralizing to both the offense and the defense). However I can\'t think of a scheme off the top of my head which involves allowing the deep pass and the short pass. The cover two is prone to give up the deep play (unless your Safeties have mad wheels), but it is very good against middle runs and short passes. Cover three takes away the deep plays but gives up the short plays. I suppose we could play some sort of double curtain, with one guy deep and thee in the intermediate (12-20 yards) zones, but I don\'t know why you\'d do that?

If what you mean is crowd the line (which would leave the flats exposed) and play two deep, I could see that. Why is this better than a cover two with my run blitzes? Maybe you\'re just agreeing with me and I missed it?

I disagreed with Billy at the time, and I will continue to do so. A good pass rush is not as important as he thought. This is going to sound stupid, but a BALANCED defensive attack is what is important. Sure a good pass rush is important to protecting a poor defensive backfield, and a good defensive backfield will improve a pass rush. However, that is only one small part of what a defense does.

There is also intermediate coverages, tackling, and flow to the ball - this all happens close to the line but not at the line. This is the aspect of our defense where we are the weekest. This is our linebackers (primarily) responsibility. It was my thought that we should in our basic defense commit an extra guy to the LOS. We\'d play two deep and four short (or some variation). This would give up one flat or one hook zone AND allow an extra attacker (who could switch, relatively easily to a pass blitz).

OUR D HAS BEEN BAD SINCE THE YEAR AFTER WE MADE THE PLAYOFFS. IF WE DONT HAVE TALENT THEN THE COACHING STAFF SHOULD AHEV WENT OUT AND FOUND SOME BY NOW. AND IF ITS NOT A TALENT ISSUE THEN ITS A COACHING ISSUE. AND THATS MY GUESS. I THINK VENTURI FRIGAN STINKS. SIMPLE AS THAT